Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, 60555-60567 [2022-21696]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60555
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 87, No. 193
Thursday, October 6, 2022
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023]
RIN 1904–AF44
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Metal
Halide Lamp Fixtures
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating an effort to
determine whether to amend the current
energy conservation standards for metal
halide lamp fixtures (‘‘MHLF’’). On
October 25, 2021, DOE published a final
determination concluding that energy
conservation standards for MHLFs do
not need to be amended because they
are not economically justified. No later
than 3 years after such a determination,
under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended, DOE
must periodically review these
standards and publish either a notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to
propose new standards for MHLFs or a
notification of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be
amended. This request for information
(‘‘RFI’’) solicits information from the
public to help DOE determine whether
amended standards for MHLFs would
result in significant energy savings and
whether such standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. As part of this
RFI, DOE seeks comment on
technological and market changes since
the most recent standards update to
consider in its evaluation of more
stringent standards. DOE also welcomes
written comments from the public on
any subject within the scope of this
document (including those topics not
specifically raised), as well as the
submission of data and other relevant
information.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before November 7,
2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023, by
any of the following methods:
Email: MHLF2022STD0023@
ee.doe.gov@ee.doe.gov. Include the
docket number EERE–2022–BT–STD–
0023 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0023. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section III
for information on how to submit
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
0371. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@
hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket contact
the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Baseline Models
3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum
Technologically Feasible Levels
4. Scaling Non-Representative Equipment
Classes
5. Cost Analysis
E. Markup Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Replacement Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
H. Shipments
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
60556
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
I. Introduction
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles. These products
include MHLFs, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) 3
EPCA prescribed initial energy
conservation standards for MHLFs, and
directed DOE to conduct two cycles of
rulemakings to determine whether to
amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(2)(A), and 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(3)(A)).
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
3 DOE notes that because of the codification of the
MHLF provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy
conservation standards and the associated test
procedures are subject to the requirements of the
consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III
of EPCA. However, because MHLFs are generally
considered to be commercial equipment, DOE
established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 CFR
part 431 (‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment’’) for ease of
reference. DOE notes that the location of the
provisions within the CFR does not affect either the
substance or applicable procedure for MHLFs.
Based upon their placement into 10 CFR part 431,
MHLFs are referred to as ‘‘equipment’’ throughout
this document, although covered by the consumer
product provisions of EPCA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
EPCA also requires that, not later than
6 years after the issuance of any final
rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE evaluate the energy
conservation standards for each type of
covered product, including those at
issue here, and publish either a
notification of determination that the
standards do not need to be amended,
or a NOPR that includes new proposed
energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In
making a determination that the
standards do not need to be amended,
DOE must evaluate whether amended
standards (1) will result in significant
conservation of energy, (2) are
technologically feasible, and (3) are cost
effective as described under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)).
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II),
DOE must determine whether the
benefits of a standard exceed its burdens
by, to the greatest extent practicable,
considering the savings in operating
costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered product in the type
(or class) compared to any increase in
the price of, or in the initial charges for,
or maintenance expenses of, the covered
products which are likely to result from
the imposition of the standard. If DOE
determines not to amend a standard
based on the statutory criteria, not later
than 3 years after the issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards,
DOE must publish either a notification
of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the
analysis on which a determination is
based publicly available and provide an
opportunity for written comment. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)).
In proposing new standards, DOE
must evaluate that proposal against the
criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as
described in the following section, and
follow the rulemaking procedures set
out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend
the standard based on the statutory
criteria, DOE must publish a final rule
not later than two years after energy
conservation standards are proposed.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)).
DOE completed the first of these
required rulemaking cycles in 2014 by
publishing a final rule amending
performance standards for MHLFs
manufactured on or after February 10,
2017. 79 FR 7746 (February 10, 2014)
(‘‘2014 Final Rule’’). Additionally, DOE
completed the second rulemaking cycle
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reviewing current standard and
determined not to amend the energy
conservation standards for MHLFs by
publishing a final rule in 2021. 86 FR
58763 (October 25, 2021) (‘‘2021 Final
Determination’’). The current energy
conservation standards are located in
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431, section
31.326. The currently applicable DOE
test procedures for MHLFs appear at 10
CFR 431.324.4
DOE is publishing this RFI pursuant
to EPCA’s requirement that DOE must
reevaluate the energy conservation
standards no later than 3 years after
making a determination not to amend
standards, (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B), and
to collect data and information to
inform its decision consistent with its
obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products. EPCA
requires that any new or amended
energy conservation standard prescribed
by the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’)
be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy or water
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, DOE
may not prescribe an amended or new
standard that will not result in
significant conservation of energy or is
not technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.5 For example, the
United States has now rejoined the Paris
Agreement on February 19, 2021. As
part of that agreement, the United States
has committed to reducing greenhouse
gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions in order to limit
the rise in mean global temperature.6 As
4 DOE also recently published a final rule
adopting amendments to its test procedure for
MHLFs to incorporate by reference new relevant
industry standards as well as update to latest
versions of existing references; clarify the selection
of reference lamps used for testing; specify the light
output level at which to test dimming ballasts;
revise definitions and reorganize the content of the
test procedure for better readability and clarity; and
revise the standby mode test method for MHLFs. 87
FR 37685 (Jun. 24, 2022).
5 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
6 See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1,
2021) (‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad’’).
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
such, energy savings that reduce GHG
emission have taken on greater
importance. In evaluating the
significance of energy savings, DOE
considers primary energy and full-fuel
cycle (‘‘FFC’’) effects when determining
whether energy savings are significant.
Primary energy and FFC effects include
the energy consumed in electricity
production (depending on load shape),
in distribution and transmission, and in
extracting, processing, and transporting
primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus present a
more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis.
To determine whether a standard is
economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven
factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the product compared to any increases
in the initial cost, or maintenance
expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy and water (if applicable) savings
likely to result directly from the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the products likely to
result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
60557
(7) Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)).
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings
during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)).
DOE fulfills these and other
applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the
rulemaking process. Table I–1 shows the
individual analyses that are performed
to satisfy each of the requirements
within EPCA.
TABLE I–1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings .......................................................................................
Technological Feasibility ...........................................................................................
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers ..........................................
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product
3. Total Projected Energy Savings ...........................................................................
4. Impact on Utility or Performance ..........................................................................
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition ..............................................................
6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation .............................................
7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant ................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE
is publishing this document seeking
7 On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal
government’s emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–
1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth
Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no
longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal
government’s appeal of that injunction or a further
court order. Among other things, the preliminary
injunction enjoined the defendants in that case
from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or
relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social
cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:52 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Equipment Price Determination.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.7
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of the technical
analyses on which DOE will ultimately
rely to determine whether (and if so,
how) to amend the standards for MHLF.
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to
monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In the absence of further intervening
court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior
to the injunction and present monetized benefits
where appropriate and permissible by law.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR
stages for an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of
appendix A states that the public
comment period for pre-NOPR
rulemaking documents will vary
depending upon the circumstances of
the particular rulemaking but will not
be less than 75 calendar days. DOE is
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
60558
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
opting to deviate from this provision by
specifying a public comment period of
30 days for this RFI. As noted, the 2021
Final Determination was published on
October 25, 2021. The methodologies
and information upon which DOE seeks
comment in this RFI are based on the
analysis conducted for the 2021 Final
Determination. Because stakeholders
have been made recently familiar with
the subjects covered in this RFI through
the 2021 Final Determination and are
not reviewing new information, DOE
has determined that 30 days is sufficient
a period for providing comments.
II. Request for Information and
Comments
In the following sections, DOE has
identified a variety of issues on which
it seeks input to aid in the development
of the technical and economic analyses
regarding whether amended standards
for MHLFs may be warranted.
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meets
the definition of MHLF, as codified at
10 CFR 430.2. An MHLF is defined as
a light fixture for general lighting
application designed to be operated
with a metal halide lamp and a ballast
for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C.
6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. DOE has also
defined several terms related to MHLF
in 10 CFR 431.322.
The Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110–
140 (December 19, 2007) (‘‘EISA 2007’’),
established energy conservation
standards for MHLFs with ballasts
designed to operate lamps with rated
wattages between 150 watts (‘‘W’’) and
500 W and excluded three types of
fixtures within the covered wattage
range from energy conservation
standards: (1) fixtures with regulated-lag
ballasts; (2) fixtures that use electronic
ballasts and operate at 480 volts (‘‘V’’);
and (3) fixtures that are rated only for
150 watt lamps, are rated for use in wet
locations as specified by the National
Fire Protection Association (‘‘NFPA’’) in
NFPA 70, ‘‘National Electrical Code
2002 Edition,’’ and contain a ballast that
is rated to operate at ambient air
temperatures above 50 Celsius (‘‘°C’’) as
specified by Underwriters Laboratory
(‘‘UL’’) in UL 1029, ‘‘Standard for Safety
High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp
Ballasts.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A)-(B)).
In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE also
promulgated standards for the group of
MHLFs with ballasts designed to
operate lamps rated 50 W–150 W and
501 W–1,000 W. DOE also promulgated
standards for one type of previously
excluded fixture: A 150 W MHLF rated
for use in wet locations and containing
a ballast that is rated to operate at
ambient air temperatures greater than 50
°C—i.e., those fixtures that fall under 42
U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii). DOE
continued to exclude from standards
MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts and
480 V electronic ballasts. In addition,
due to a lack of applicable test method
for high-frequency electronic (‘‘HFE’’)
ballasts, in the 2014 Final Rule, DOE
did not establish standards for MHLFs
with HFE ballasts. 79 FR 7746, 7754–
7756.
Although current standards for
MHLFs require them to contain a ballast
that meets or exceeds a minimum
ballast efficiency, the entity responsible
for certifying compliance with the
applicable standard is the MHLF
manufacturer or importer. The MHLF
manufacturer may opt to use a thirdparty to certify on its behalf, such as the
ballast manufacturer. However, the
MHLF manufacturer or importer is
ultimately responsible for certifying
compliance to DOE. See generally 42
U.S.C. 6291(10)–(12) and 10 CFR
429.12.
DOE seeks feedback on whether
definitions related to MHLFs in 10 CFR
431.322 require any revisions—and if
so, how those definitions should be
revised. DOE also seeks input on
whether additional definitions are
necessary for DOE to clarify or
otherwise implement its regulatory
requirements related to MHLFs.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology
assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a
potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides
information about the MHLF industry
that will be used in DOE’s analysis
throughout the rulemaking process.
DOE uses qualitative and quantitative
information to characterize the structure
of the industry and market. DOE
identifies manufacturers, estimates
market shares and trends, addresses
regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives
intended to improve energy efficiency
or reduce energy consumption, and
explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and
manufacturing of MHLF. DOE also
reviews equipment literature, industry
publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting
interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market
and available technologies for MHLFs.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into
classes based on the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other
performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)). In making a determination
whether capacity or another
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider
such factors as the utility of the feature
to the consumer and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. (Id.)
For MHLF, the current energy
conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 431.326 are based on 24 equipment
classes determined according to
performance-related features that
provide utility to the consumer, in terms
of input voltage, rated lamp wattage,
and designation for indoor versus
outdoor applications. Table II–1 lists the
current 24 equipment classes for
MHLFs.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE II–1—CURRENT MHLF EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following rated lamp
wattage
Indoor/outdoor
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * .............................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * .............................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * .............................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * .............................................................................
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ............................................................................
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ............................................................................
Indoor .............................................
Indoor .............................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Indoor .............................................
Indoor .............................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Indoor .............................................
Indoor .............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
Input voltage type ***
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
06OCP1
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
60559
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–1—CURRENT MHLF EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following rated lamp
wattage
Indoor/outdoor
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ............................................................................
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ............................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Indoor .............................................
Indoor .............................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Indoor .............................................
Indoor .............................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Indoor .............................................
Indoor .............................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Outdoor ..........................................
Input voltage type ***
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
* Includes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see 10 CFR 431.323), section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above
50 °C, as specified by UL 1029 (incorporated by reference, see 10 CFR 431.323).
** Excludes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section
410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029.
*** Input voltage for testing is specified by the test procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W must be tested at 120 V, and
ballasts rated to operate lamps ≥150 W must be tested at 277 V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages must be tested at
the highest voltage the ballast is designed to operate.
In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE adopted
standards that would result in the
benefits of energy savings, emissions
reductions, and net present value
(‘‘NPV’’) at each representative
equipment class that outweighed the
potential reduction in industry net
present value (‘‘INPV’’) for
manufacturers. In doing so, DOE did not
adopt standards for MHLFs designed to
be operated with lamps rated greater
than 1,000 W and less than or equal to
2,000 W. 79 FR 7746, 7834–7836.
Furthermore, because DOE adopted the
same standards for indoor and outdoor
equipment classes that are tested at the
same input voltage and operate lamps of
the same wattage, DOE omitted the
indoor/outdoor distinction when
codifying the table of standards into 10
CFR 431.326(c). In the 2014 Final Rule,
DOE analyzed indoor and outdoor
fixtures separately because these two
types of fixtures offer different
performance-related features. When
electronic ballasts are used in outdoor
applications, they require additional
transient protection because of the
potential for voltage surges in outdoor
locations. Indoor fixtures with
electronic ballasts also have an added
feature to provide 120 V auxiliary power
functionality for use in the event of a
power outage. Based on these different
features, DOE established separate
equipment classes for indoor and
outdoor fixtures, but adopted the same
minimum energy conservation
standards for these classes. 79 FR 7746,
7763–7764. In the 2021 Final
Determination, for the same reasons
noted above, DOE continued to analyze
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
MHLFs under separate equipment
classes for indoor and outdoor fixtures.
86 FR 58763, 58769. As noted
previously, DOE did not amend
standards in the 2021 Final
Determination.
DOE seeks feedback on the current
MHLF equipment classes and whether
changes to these individual equipment
classes and their descriptions should be
made or whether certain classes should
be merged or separated (e.g., indoor and
outdoor, wattage ranges). Specifically,
DOE requests comment on whether the
features associated with indoor and/or
outdoor fixtures (e.g., thermal
management, transient protection,
auxiliary power functionality) remain in
the market today.
DOE is also aware that new
configurations and features are available
for MHLFs that may not have been
available at the time of the last energy
conservation standards analysis. Based
on DOE’s review of the market, DOE
found metal halide dimming ballasts
available from multiple manufacturers
that could be used in MHLFs. DOE has
identified both step-level dimming and
continuous dimming metal halide
systems that are dimmable down to 50
percent of rated power.
DOE seeks information regarding any
new equipment classes it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis.
Specifically, DOE requests information
on any performance-related features
(e.g., dimmability, etc.) that may
provide unique consumer utility and
data detailing the corresponding
impacts on energy use that would justify
separate equipment classes (i.e.,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
explanation for why the presence of
these performance-related features
would increase energy consumption).
In describing which MHLFs are
included in each equipment class, DOE
incorporates by reference the 2002
version of NFPA 70, ‘‘National Electrical
Code’’ 8 and the 2007 version of UL
1029, ‘‘High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp
Ballasts’’ 9 in DOE’s regulations through
10 CFR 431.323. NFPA 70 is a national
safety standard for electrical design,
installation, and inspection, and is also
known as the National Electrical Code.
UL 1029 is a safety standard specific to
high intensity discharge (‘‘HID’’) lamp
ballasts; a metal halide lamp ballast is
a type of HID lamp ballast. Both NFPA
70 and UL 1029 are used to describe the
applicable equipment class for MHLFs
(see section II.B.1 of this document).
DOE has found that a 2020 version of
NFPA 70 10 (‘‘NFPA 70–2020’’) and a
2022 version of UL 1029 11 (‘‘UL 1029–
2022’’) are now available.
DOE seeks comment on whether
incorporating by reference the updated
industry standards, NFPA 70–2020 and
UL 1029–2022, will impact the MHLFs
8 National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 70–
2002 (‘‘NFPA 70’’), National Electrical Code 2002
Edition.
9 Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL
1029–2007) (‘‘UL 1029’’), Standard for Safety HighIntensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts, 5th edition,
Approved May 25, 1994.
10 National Fire Protection Association, NFPA
70–2020 (‘‘NFPA 70’’), National Electrical Code
2020 Edition.
11 Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL
1029–2007) (‘‘UL 1029’’), Standard for Safety HighIntensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts, 5th edition,
Revised July 15, 2022.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
60560
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
included in each equipment class in
DOE’s regulations.
consider in its analysis. That analysis
will likely include a number of the
technology options DOE previously
considered during the 2021 Final
Determination for MHLFs. A complete
list of those prior options appears in
Table II–2.
technology options and prototype
designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet
and/or exceed a given set of energy
conservation standards under
consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to
develop a list of technologies to
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of
potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses
information about existing and past
TABLE II–2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR MHLFS CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2021 FINAL
DETERMINATION
Ballast type
Design option
Description
Magnetic ........................
Improved Core Steel
Grain-Oriented Silicon
Steel.
Use a higher grade of electrical steel, including grain-oriented silicon steel, to lower core
losses.
Amorphous Steel ........
Create the core of the inductor from laminated sheets of amorphous steel insulated from
each other.
Improved Steel Laminations.
Add steel laminations to lower core losses by using thinner laminations.
Copper Wiring .............
Use copper wiring in place of aluminum wiring to lower resistive losses.
Improved Windings .....
Use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple, smaller coils; shape-optimized coils to reduce
winding losses.
Electronic Ballast ........
Replace magnetic ballasts with electronic ballasts.
Electronic .......................
Improved Components
Magnetics ...................
Improved Windings: Use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple, smaller coils; shape-optimized coils; litz wire to reduce winding losses.
Diodes .........................
Use diodes with lower losses.
Capacitors ...................
Use capacitors with a lower effective series resistance and output capacitance.
Transistors ..................
Use transistors with lower drain-to-source resistance.
Improved Circuit Design
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Integrated Circuits ......
DOE seeks information on the
technologies listed in Table II–2
regarding their applicability to the
current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency
of MHLFs as measured according to the
DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
information on how these technologies
may have changed since they were
considered in the 2021 Final
Determination analysis. Specifically,
DOE seeks information on the range of
efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently
available for each technology option.
DOE seeks comment on other
technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis
and if these technologies may impact
equipment features or consumer utility
of MHLFs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
Substitute discrete components with an integrated circuit.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis
is to evaluate the technologies that
improve equipment efficiency to
determine which technologies will be
eliminated from further consideration
and which will be passed to the
engineering analysis for further
consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate
certain technology options from further
consideration based on the following
criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial equipment or in working
prototypes will not be considered
further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production of a technology in
commercial equipment and reliable
installation and servicing of the
technology could not be achieved on the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the compliance
date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or
equipment availability. If a technology
is determined to have significant
adverse impact on the utility of the
equipment to significant subgroups of
consumers, or result in the
unavailability of any covered equipment
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or
safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse
impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary
Technologies. If a design option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, that technology will not
be considered further due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
Technology options identified in the
technology assessment are evaluated
against these criteria using DOE
analyses and inputs from interested
parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade
organizations, and energy efficiency
advocates). Technologies that pass
through the screening analysis are
referred to as ‘‘design options’’ in the
engineering analysis. Technology
options that fail to meet one or more of
the five criteria are eliminated from
consideration.
In the 2021 Final Determination, for
magnetic ballasts, DOE screened out the
technology option of using laminated
sheets of amorphous steel. DOE
determined that using amorphous steel
could have adverse impacts on
consumer utility because increasing the
size and weight of the ballast may limit
the places a consumer could use the
ballast. DOE did not screen out any
other technology options in that
rulemaking. 86 FR 58763, 58771.
DOE requests feedback on what
impact, if any, the five screening criteria
described in this section would have on
each of the technology options listed in
Table II–2 with respect to MHLFs.
Similarly, DOE seeks information
regarding how these same criteria would
affect any other technology options not
already identified in this document with
respect to their potential use in MHLFs.
With respect to the screened-out
technology option of laminated sheets of
amorphous steel, DOE seeks information
on whether this option would, based on
current and projected assessments,
remain screened out under the five
screening criteria described in this
section. Additionally, DOE seeks
information on what steps, if any, could
be (or have already been) taken to
facilitate the introduction of this
technology option as a means to
improve the energy performance of
MHLFs and the potential to impact
consumer utility of MHLFs.
D. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of
MHLFs. There are two elements to
consider in the engineering analysis; the
selection of efficiency levels to analyze
(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the
determination of equipment cost at each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost
analysis’’). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as
the incremental cost for the equipment
at efficiency levels above the baseline.
The output of the engineering analysis
is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that
are used in downstream analyses (i.e.,
the life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses and the
national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’)). The
following sections provide further detail
on DOE’s engineering analysis and seek
public input on specific issues pertinent
to MHLFs, the subject of this
rulemaking.
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two
approaches to develop energy efficiency
levels for the engineering analysis: (1)
relying on observed efficiency levels in
the market (i.e., the efficiency-level
approach), or (2) determining the
incremental efficiency improvements
associated with incorporating specific
design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the
efficiency-level approach, the efficiency
levels established for the analysis are
determined based on the market
distribution of existing equipment (in
other words, based on the range of
efficiencies and efficiency level
‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the
market). Using the design option
approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are
determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or
computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing
specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment.
DOE may also rely on a combination of
these two approaches. For example, the
efficiency-level approach (based on
actual equipment on the market) may be
extended using the design option
approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap
fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between
other identified efficiency levels) and/or
to extrapolate to the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
efficiency level (particularly in cases
where the max-tech level exceeds the
maximum efficiency level currently
available on the market).
2. Baseline Models
For each established equipment class,
DOE selects a baseline model as a
reference point against which any
changes resulting from new or amended
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60561
energy conservation standards can be
measured. The baseline model in each
equipment class represents the
characteristics of common or typical
equipment in that class. Typically, a
baseline model is one that meets the
current minimum energy conservation
standards and provides basic consumer
utility. Consistent with this analytical
approach, DOE tentatively plans to
consider the current minimum energy
conservations standards (which went
into effect February 10, 2017) to
establish the baseline efficiency levels
for each equipment class. 79 FR 7749.
The current standards for each
equipment class are based on ballast
efficiency. The current standards for
MHLFs are found at 10 CFR 431.326.
DOE requests feedback on whether
the current energy conservation
standards for MHLFs are the appropriate
baseline efficiency levels for DOE to
apply to each equipment class in
evaluating whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards
for these equipment classes.
DOE requests feedback on the
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
any newly analyzed equipment classes
that are not currently in place or for the
contemplated combined equipment
classes, as discussed in section II.B.1 of
this document.
3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum
Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE’s analysis, the
maximum available efficiency level is
the highest efficiency unit currently
available on the market. DOE selects
certain equipment classes as
‘‘representative’’ to focus its analysis.
DOE chooses equipment classes as
representative primarily because of their
high market volumes and/or unique
characteristics. In the 2021 Final
Determination analysis, DOE did not
directly analyze the equipment classes
containing fixtures with ballasts tested
at 480 V due to low shipment volumes.
DOE selected all other equipment
classes as representative, resulting in a
total of 12 representative classes
covering the full range of lamp wattages,
as well as indoor and outdoor
designations. DOE then scaled the
efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’) from
representative equipment classes to
those equipment classes it did not
analyze directly (see section II.D.4 for
further details on scaling). 86 FR 58763,
58771–58772, 58776.
In the 2021 Final Determination,
based on the more-efficient ballasts
selected for the analysis, DOE
developed ELs for the representative
equipment classes. DOE found the
more-efficient magnetic EL represented
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
60562
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
a magnetic ballast with a higher grade
of steel compared to the baseline. DOE
identified a second EL (an electronic EL)
for the ≥150 W and ≤250 W and >250
W and ≤500 W equipment classes. The
standard electronic level represented a
ballast with standard electronic
components compared to the standard
electronic level. The maximum
available ELs identified for the 12
analyzed equipment classes in the 2021
Final Determination are specified in
Table II–3. 86 FR 58763, 58774, 58776.
circuitry. DOE identified a third EL (a
more efficient electronic EL) in the ≥50
W and ≤100 W and >100 W and <150
W equipment classes. The moreefficient electronic EL represented an
electronic ballast with an improved
circuit design and/or more efficient
TABLE II–3—MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY LEVELS FROM 2021 FINAL DETERMINATION
Designed to be
operated with lamps of the
following rated lamp wattage
Indoor/outdoor
≥50 W and ≤100 W ........................
>100 W and <150 W .....................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ......................
>250 W and ≤500 W .....................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ..................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ...............
Indoor/Outdoor
Indoor/Outdoor
Indoor/Outdoor
Indoor/Outdoor
Indoor/Outdoor
Indoor/Outdoor
Input voltage type
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
All
All
All
All
All
All
others
others
others
others
others
others
except
except
except
except
except
except
480
480
480
480
480
480
V
V
V
V
V
V
Maximum efficiency level
................
................
................
................
................
................
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
0.000057*P+0.881.
¥0.000008*P+0.946.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency
level to represent the theoretical
maximum possible efficiency if all
available design options are
incorporated in a model. In applying
these design options, DOE would only
include those that are compatible with
each other that when combined, would
represent the theoretical maximum
possible efficiency. In many cases, the
max-tech efficiency level is not
commercially available because it is not
economically feasible to implement. In
the 2021 Final Determination, DOE
determined max-tech efficiency levels
based on commercially available
ballasts.
DOE seeks input on whether the maxtech efficiency levels presented in Table
II–3 are appropriate and technologically
feasible for potential consideration as
possible energy conservation standards
for the equipment at issue—and if not,
why not.
DOE also requests feedback on
whether the max-tech efficiency levels
presented in Table II–3 are
representative of those for the
equipment classes not directly analyzed
in the 2021 Final Determination (i.e.,
ballasts tested at 480 V). If the range of
possible efficiencies is different for the
other equipment classes not directly
analyzed, what alternative approaches
should DOE consider using for those
equipment classes and why?
DOE seeks feedback on what design
options would be incorporated at a maxtech efficiency level, and the
efficiencies associated with those levels.
As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are
limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
4. Scaling Non-Representative
Equipment Classes
After developing ELs, DOE then scales
the ELs from representative equipment
classes to those equipment classes it
does not analyze directly. As discussed
in section II.D.3 of this document, DOE
did not directly analyze the equipment
classes containing fixtures with ballasts
tested at 480 V and instead scaled them
from the ELs of equipment classes
analyzed in the 2021 Final
Determination. Specifically, DOE
developed a scaling factor by comparing
quad-voltage ballasts 12 over all
representative wattages to their 480 V
ballast counterparts. DOE found that the
difference in efficiency between ballasts
tested at 480 V and ballasts tested at
other input voltages varied based on the
wattage of the ballast. Based on this
analysis and comments from
manufacturers DOE concluded a scaling
factor of 12.0 percent (in the form of a
subtraction of 12 percent from the
representative equipment class ELs) to
be appropriate from 50 W–150 W, a
scaling factor of 4.0 percent to be
appropriate from 150 W to 1,000 W, and
a scaling factor of 0.0 percent (i.e., no
reduction) to be appropriate from 1,001
W to 2,000 W. 86 FR 58763, 58776–
58777.
DOE requests comment on whether it
is necessary to individually analyze all
24 equipment classes used in the 2021
Final Determination. Additionally, DOE
welcomes comment on whether the
approach used to apply the analyzed
equipment class results to the other
equipment classes is appropriate—and
if not, why not? For example, if it is
necessary to individually analyze more
than 12 equipment classes used in the
12 Quad-voltage ballasts are capable of operating
at 120 V or 277 V.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2021 Final Determination, please
provide information on why aggregating
certain equipment is not appropriate. If
this approach is not appropriate, what
alternative approaches should DOE
consider using and why?
DOE requests feedback on how the
performance of ballasts that are tested at
480 V compares to ballasts of the same
wattage and indoor/outdoor
classification that are in other
equipment classes. DOE also requests
comment on the scaling factors used to
develop ELs for the equipment classes
containing fixtures with ballasts tested
at 480 V.
5. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the
engineering analysis is conducted using
one or a combination of cost
approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors,
including availability and reliability of
public information, characteristics of
the regulated equipment, and the
availability and timeliness of
purchasing the equipment on the
market. The cost approaches are
summarized as follows:
b Physical teardowns: Under this
approach, DOE physically dismantles a
commercially available equipment,
component-by-component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials for the
equipment.
b Catalog teardowns: In lieu of
physically deconstructing an
equipment, DOE identifies each
component using parts diagrams
(available from manufacturer websites
or appliance repair websites, for
example) to develop the bill of materials
for the equipment.
b Price surveys: If neither a physical
nor catalog teardown is feasible (for
example, for tightly integrated
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
equipment such as fluorescent lamps,
which are infeasible to disassemble and
for which parts diagrams are
unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and
otherwise impractical (e.g., large
commercial boilers), DOE conducts
price surveys using publicly available
pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting
prices from distributors and other
commercial channels.
The bill of materials provides the
basis for the manufacturer production
cost (‘‘MPC’’) estimates. DOE then
applies a manufacturer markup to
convert the MPC to manufacturer selling
price (‘‘MSP’’). The manufacturer
markup accounts for costs such as
overhead and profit. The resulting bill
of materials provides the basis for the
MPC estimates.
For the 2021 Final Determination,
DOE conducted teardown analyses on
commercially available MHLFs, and the
ballasts included in these fixtures.
Using the information from these
teardowns, DOE summed the direct
material, labor, and overhead costs used
to manufacture a MHLF or metal halide
(‘‘MH’’) ballast, to calculate the MPC.
DOE then determined the MSPs of
fixture components and more-efficient
MH ballasts identified for each EL. To
determine the fixture components
MSPs, DOE conducted fixture
teardowns to derive MPCs of empty
fixtures (i.e., lamp enclosure and
optics). The empty fixture does not
include the ballast or lamp. DOE then
added the other components required by
the system (including ballast and any
cost adders associated with
electronically ballasted systems) and
applied appropriate markups to obtain a
final MSP for the entire fixture. 86 FR
58763, 58777.
DOE requests feedback on how
manufacturers would incorporate the
technology options listed in Table II–2
to increase energy efficiency in MHLFs
beyond the baseline. This includes
information on the sequencing
manufacturers would follow when
incorporating the different technologies
to incrementally improve MHLF
efficiency. DOE also requests feedback
on whether increased energy efficiency
would lead to other design changes that
would not occur otherwise. DOE is
interested in information regarding any
potential impact of design options on a
manufacturer’s ability to incorporate
additional functions or attributes in
response to consumer demand. DOE is
also interested in the extent to which (if
at all) any design changes may adversely
impact the ability of a given MHLF to
operate with currently compatible
applications.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
DOE seeks input on the increase in
MPC associated with incorporating each
particular design option (e.g., improved
core steel). Specifically, DOE is
interested in whether and how the costs
estimated for design options in the 2021
Final Determination have changed since
the time of that analysis. DOE also
requests information on the investments
necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to,
costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and
development efforts to implement each
design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
DOE requests comment on whether
certain design options may not be
applicable to (or incompatible with)
certain equipment classes.
DOE seeks input on any relevant cost
adders necessary based on ballast and
fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic
ballast, indoor or outdoor fixture).
Specifically, DOE is interested in
whether and how the incremental costs
for electronically ballasted fixtures in
the 2021 Final Determination have
changed since the time of that analysis.
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a non-production cost multiplier
(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting MSP is the price at which
the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the 2021 Final
Determination DOE used separate
markups for ballast manufacturers (1.47)
and fixture manufacturers (1.58). 86 FR
58763, 58778.
DOE requests feedback on whether its
assumptions regarding manufacturer
markups and the values of the markups
(1.47 and 1.58) are appropriate for
ballast manufacturers and fixture
manufacturers, respectively—with the
1.58 markup applying to fixtures with
and without ballasts). If they are
appropriate, why—and if not, why not?
If they are not appropriate, what should
they be and why?
E. Markup Analysis
DOE derives consumer prices based
on manufacturer markups, retailer
markups, distributor markups,
contractor markups (where appropriate),
and sales taxes. In deriving these
markups, DOE determines the major
distribution channels for equipment
sales, the markup associated with each
party in each distribution channel, and
the existence and magnitude of
differences between markups for
baseline equipment (‘‘baseline
markups’’) and higher-efficiency
equipment (‘‘incremental markups’’).
The identified distribution channels
(i.e., how the equipment is distributed
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60563
from the manufacturer to the consumer),
and estimated relative sales volumes
through each channel are used in
generating consumer price inputs for the
LCC analysis and NIA.
DOE tentatively plans to use the same
distribution channels and wholesaler
and contractor markups as in the 2021
Final Determination. In an electrical
wholesaler distribution channel, DOE
assumed the fixture manufacturer sells
the fixture to an electrical wholesaler
(i.e., distributor), who in turn sells it to
a contractor, who sells it to the
consumer. In a contractor distribution
channel, DOE assumed the fixture
manufacturer sells the fixture directly to
a contractor, who sells it to the
consumer. In a utility distribution
channel, DOE assumed the fixture
manufacturer sells the fixture directly to
the consumer (i.e., electrical utility).
Indoor fixtures are all assumed to go
through the electrical wholesaler
distribution channel. Outdoor fixtures
are assumed to go through all three
distribution channels as follows: 60
percent electrical wholesaler, 20 percent
contractor, and 20 percent utility. 86 FR
58763, 58778–58779.
In the 2021 Final Determination, DOE
used the same wholesaler and
contractor markups as the 2014 Final
Rule and assumed a wholesaler baseline
markup of 1.23 and a contractor markup
of 1.13, yielding a total wholesaler
distribution channel baseline markup of
1.49. The lower wholesaler incremental
markup of 1.05 yields a lower total
incremental markup through this
distribution channel of 1.27. DOE also
assumed a utility markup of 1.00 for the
utility distribution channel in which the
manufacturer sells a fixture directly to
the consumer. DOE again assumed a
contractor markup of 1.13 for the utility
distribution channel in which a
manufacturer sells a fixture to a
contractor who in turn sells it to the
consumer yielding an overall markup of
1.21 for this channel. 86 FR 58763,
58779.
DOE requests information and data on
any changes to the distribution channels
or wholesaler or contractor markups.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process,
DOE conducts an energy use analysis to
identify how the equipment is used by
consumers, and thereby determine the
energy savings potential of energy
efficiency improvements. DOE bases the
energy consumption of metal halide
lamp fixtures on the rated annual energy
consumption as determined by the DOE
test procedure. Along similar lines, the
energy use analysis is meant to
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
60564
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
represent typical energy consumption in
the field.
DOE tentatively plans to use the same
energy use methodology as in the 2021
Final Determination. To develop annual
energy use estimates, DOE multiplied
the lamp-and-ballast system input
power (in watts) by annual usage (in
hours per year). DOE characterized
representative lamp-and-ballast systems
in the engineering analysis, which
provided measured input power ratings.
To characterize the country’s average
usage of fixtures for a typical year, DOE
developed annual operating hour
distributions by sector, using data
published in the 2015 U.S. Lighting
Market Characterization (‘‘LMC’’).13 For
the ≥50 W and ≤100 W to >500 W and
≤1000 W equipment classes, DOE
obtained weighted-average annual
operating hours for the commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary
sectors of approximately 2,300 hours,
5,100 hours, and 5,000 hours,
respectively. For the 1,500 W equipment
class, DOE assigned annual operating
hours of approximately 770 hours for all
lamps according to the 2015 LMC
estimate of 2.1 hours per day for sports
field lighting. 86 FR 58763, 58779.
DOE requests information and data on
any changes to the operating hours for
metal halide lamp fixtures.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP
analysis to evaluate the economic effects
of potential energy conservation
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures
on individual consumers. For any given
efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP
and the change in LCC relative to an
estimated baseline level. The LCC is the
total consumer expense over the life of
the equipment, consisting of purchase,
installation, and operating costs
(expenses for energy use, maintenance,
and repair). Inputs to the calculation of
total installed cost include the cost of
the equipment—which includes MSPs,
distribution channel markups, and sales
taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs,
equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the year that compliance with new and
amended standards is required. DOE
tentatively plans to develop inputs for
the LCC analysis similarly to the 2021
13 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting
Market Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of
Energy: Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EE–1719.
(Last accessed February 3, 2020.) https://
energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lightingmarket-characterization.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
Final Determination, as discussed in the
following subsections.
1. Equipment Cost
In the 2021 Final Determination, to
calculate consumer equipment costs,
DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in
the engineering analysis by the markups
described previously (along with sales
taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline equipment and higherefficiency equipment because DOE
applies an incremental markup to the
increase in MSP associated with higherefficiency equipment. 86 FR 58763,
58779, 58780–58781.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost is the cost to install
the fixture such as the labor, overhead,
and any miscellaneous materials and
parts needed. In the 2021 Final
Determination, DOE used the
installation costs from the 2014 Final
Rule but inflated to 2020$ using the
GDP price deflator. 86 FR 58763, 58780–
58781.
DOE requests information and data on
any changes to the installation cost for
metal halide lamp fixtures.
year of 2050. DOE assumed regional
electricity prices after 2050 are constant
at their 2050 price. 86 FR 58763, 58780–
58781.
5. Replacement Costs
Replacement costs include the labor
and materials costs associated with
replacing a ballast or lamp at the end of
their lifetimes and are annualized across
the years preceding and including the
actual year in which equipment is
replaced. In the 2021 Final
Determination, the costs were taken
from the 2014 Final Rule but inflated to
2020$ using the GDP price deflator. For
the LCC and PBP analysis, the analysis
period corresponds with the fixture
lifetime that is assumed to be longer
than that of either the lamp or the
ballast. For this reason, ballast and lamp
prices and labor costs associated with
lamp or ballast replacements are
included in the calculation of operating
costs. Id.
DOE requests information and data on
any changes to the replacement costs for
metal halide lamp fixtures.
6. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines equipment lifetime as
3. Annual Energy Consumption
the age when a fixture, ballast, or lamp
In the 2021 Final Determination, for
is retired from service. In the 2021 Final
each sampled consumer, DOE
Determination, for fixtures in all
determined the energy consumption for
equipment classes, DOE assumed
an MHLF at different efficiency levels
average lifetimes for indoor and outdoor
using the approach described previously
fixtures of 20 and 25 years, respectively.
in section II.F of this document. DOE
DOE also assumed that magnetic
used operating hour (and, by extension,
ballasts had a rated lifetime of 50,000
energy use) distributions to better
hours and electronic ballasts had a rated
characterize the potential range of
lifetime of 40,000 hours. DOE used
operating conditions faced by MHLF
manufacturer catalog data to obtain
consumers. 86 FR 58763, 58779–58781.
rated lifetime estimates (in hours) for
lamps in each equipment class. DOE
4. Energy Prices
DOE applied average electricity prices accounted for uncertainty in the fixture,
ballast, and lamp lifetimes by applying
for the energy use of the equipment
Weibull survival distributions to the
purchased in the no-new-standards
components’ rated lifetimes.
case, and marginal electricity prices for
Furthermore, DOE included a residual
the incremental change in energy use
value calculation for lamps and ballasts
associated with the other efficiency
to account for the residual monetary
levels considered in the 2021 Final
value associated with the remaining life
Determination. DOE derived annual
in the lamp and ballast at the end of the
electricity prices for each census
fixture lifetime. Id.
division using data from the Edison
DOE requests information and data on
Electric Institute (‘‘EEI’’) Typical Bills
any
changes to the equipment lifetime
14
and Average Rates reports. To estimate
for metal halide lamp fixtures.
energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average regional energy
7. Discount Rates
prices by a projection of annual change
The discount rate is the rate at which
in national-average commercial and
future expenditures are discounted to
industrial energy prices in the Reference estimate their present value. In the 2021
case of Annual Energy Outlook 2021
Final Determination, DOE estimated
(‘‘AEO 2021’’).15 AEO 2021 has an end
separate discount rates for commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary
14 Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and
applications. DOE used discount rate
Average Rates Report. 2019. Winter 2019, Summer
2019: Washington, DC.
15 U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2050. 2021. Washington, DC. (Last accessed March
18, 2021.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
data from a 2019 Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory report.16 The
average discount rates, weighted by the
shares of each rate value in the sectoral
distributions, are 8.3 percent for
commercial consumers, 8.8 percent for
industrial consumers, and 3.2 percent
for outdoor stationary consumers. 86 FR
58763, 58781–58782.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the
No-New-Standards Case
For the 2021 Final Determination,
DOE developed a no-new-standards case
efficiency distribution using model
count data from DOE’s compliance
certification database collected on May
5, 2021. The compliance certification
database does not contain models in the
60565
>1000 W and ≤2000 W equipment class;
therefore, DOE assumed 56 percent of
the market is at the baseline and 44
percent of the market is at EL 1, based
on MHLF catalog data. The complete
efficiency distribution for 2025 that
DOE used in the 2021 Final
Determination is shown in Table II–4.
86 FR 58763, 58782.
TABLE II–4—MHLF EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION BY EQUIPMENT CLASS FOR 2025 FROM THE 2021 FINAL DETERMINATION
Equipment class *
≥50 W and
≤100 W
(%)
Efficiency level
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
* Columns
>100 W and
<150 W
(%)
82.0
1.2
9.5
7.4
16.4
32.9
0.0
50.7
≥150 W and
≤250 W
(%)
>250 W and
≤500 W
(%)
>500 W and
≤1000 W
(%)
>1000 W and
≤2000 W
(%)
53.6
40.1
6.3
........................
95.6
1.1
3.3
........................
97.1
2.9
........................
........................
56.0
44.0
........................
........................
may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
DOE requests information and data on
any changes to the no-new-standards
efficiency distribution for metal halide
lamp fixtures.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of
time it takes the consumer to recover the
additional installed cost of moreefficient equipment, compared to
baseline equipment, through energy cost
savings. Payback periods are expressed
in years. Payback periods that exceed
the life of the equipment mean that the
increased total installed cost is not
recovered in reduced operating
expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for
each efficiency level are the change in
total installed cost of the equipment and
the change in the first-year annual
operating expenditures relative to the
baseline. The PBP calculation uses the
same inputs as the LCC analysis, except
that discount rates are not needed.
As noted previously, EPCA
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing
equipment complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the first
year’s energy savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)). For each considered
efficiency level, DOE determines the
value of the first year’s energy savings
by calculating the energy savings in
accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those
savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which
compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
H. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of
MHLFs to calculate the national impacts
of potential amended energy
conservation standards on energy
consumption, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows. Using a three-
step process, in the 2021 Final
Determination, DOE developed
projections of future fixture shipments
using historical data as the basis. First,
DOE used U.S. Census Bureau fixture
shipment data, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’)
lamp shipment data, and NEMA ballast
sales trends to estimate historical
shipments of each fixture type analyzed.
Second, DOE estimated the installed
stock for each fixture in 2021 based on
the average service lifetime of each
fixture type. Third, DOE developed
annual shipment projections for 2021–
2052 by modeling fixture purchasing
events, such as replacement and new
construction, and applying estimates of
the building stock growth rate, MHLF
replacement rate, and penetration rate of
light emitting diode (‘‘LED’’)
alternatives. 86 FR 58763, 58782–58783.
DOE used model counts from data
downloaded from DOE’s compliance
certification database for MHLFs to
estimate market shares by equipment
class as shown in Table II–5. Id.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE II—5 MARKET SHARE BY EQUIPMENT CLASS FOR SHIPMENTS IN 2021 FROM THE 2021 FINAL DETERMINATION
≥50 W and
≤100 W
(%)
>100 W and
<150 W
(%)
≥150 W and
≤250 W
(%)
>250 W and
≤500 W
(%)
>500 W and
≤1000 W
(%)
>1000 W and
≤2000 W
(%)
Market Share ...........................................
25.5
8.2
24.9
31.2
9.7
0.5
DOE seeks any information or data on
updates to the market share by
equipment class relative to the market
shares estimated in the 2021 Final
Determination.
Current sales estimates allow for a
more accurate model that captures
recent trends in the market. In the 2021
Final Determination, DOE projected a
faster decline in MHLF shipments
compared to what it had projected in
16 Fujita, K. S. Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency
Standards Analysis: Sector-Level Data 1998–2018.
2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Berkeley, CA. (Last accessed January 15, 2020.)
https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/commercialindustrial-institutional.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
60566
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the notice of proposed determination for
the rule (see 85 FR 47472 (August 5,
2020)), based on updated NEMA sales
indices, that resulted in a decline of
2030 shipments of metal halide lamps
by more than 99 percent relative to
shipments in 2021, due to the incursion
of out-of-scope LED equipment.17 86 FR
58763, 58782–58783.
DOE seeks data on MHLF and metal
halide lamp ballast shipments, as well
as the projected shipment values from
the 2021 Final Determination as
compared to actual recent shipments of
MHLFs.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the NIA is to estimate
the aggregate economic impacts of
potential efficiency standards at the
national level. The NIA assesses the
national energy savings and the national
NPV of total consumer costs and savings
that would be expected to result over 30
years of shipments from new or
amended standards at specific efficiency
levels.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new and
amended standards by comparing nonew-standards-case projections with
standards-case projections. The no-newstandards-case projections characterize
energy use and consumer costs for each
equipment class in the absence of new
or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE compares the no-newstandards-case with projections
characterizing the market for each
equipment class if DOE adopts new or
amended standards at specific energy
efficiency levels (i.e., the trial standard
levels (‘‘TSLs’’) or standards cases) for
that class. In characterizing the no-newstandards and standards cases, DOE
considers historical shipments, the mix
of efficiencies sold in the absence of
amended standards, penetration into the
market from out-of-scope LED
alternatives, and how the market may
evolve over time.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer
impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate
the financial impact of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of MHLFs, and to
evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the
Government Regulatory Impact Model
(‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash-flow model
17 See chapter 9 of the 2021 Final Determination
Technical Support Document: https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0016-0017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
adapted for every equipment in this
analysis, with the key output of INPV.
The qualitative part of the MIA
addresses the potential impacts of
energy conservation standards on
manufacturing capacity and industry
competition, as well as factors such as
equipment characteristics, impacts on
particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and equipment trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to
analyze impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on subgroups of
manufacturers of covered equipment,
including small business manufacturers.
DOE uses the Small Business
Administration’s (‘‘SBA’’) small
business size standards to determine
whether manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the
applicable North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code.18
Manufacturing of consumer MHLF is
classified under NAICS 335122,
‘‘Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture
Manufacturing,’’ and the SBA sets a
threshold of 500 employees or less for
a domestic entity to be considered as a
small business. Manufacturing of metal
halide ballasts is classified under
NAICS 335311, ‘‘Power, Distribution
and Specialty Transformer
Manufacturing,’’ and the SBA sets a
threshold of 750 employees or less for
a domestic entity to be considered as a
small business. The employee threshold
includes all employees in a business’
parent company and any other
subsidiaries.
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product/equipmentspecific regulatory actions of other
Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or
equipment. While any one regulation
may not impose a significant burden on
manufacturers, the combined effects of
several existing or impending
regulations may have serious
consequences for some manufacturers,
groups of manufacturers, or an entire
industry. Assessing the impact of a
single regulation may overlook this
cumulative regulatory burden. In
addition to energy conservation
standards, other regulations can
significantly affect manufacturers’
financial operations. Multiple
regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product or
equipment lines or markets with lower
18 Available online at www.sba.gov/document/
support--table-size-standards (last accessed August
9, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
expected future returns than competing
products or equipment. For these
reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of
its rulemakings pertaining to appliance
efficiency.
To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the
names and contact information of any
domestic or foreign-based
manufacturers that distribute MHLFs in
the United States.
DOE identified small businesses as a
subgroup of manufacturers that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests the names and contact
information of small business
manufacturers, as defined by the SBA’s
size threshold, of MHLFs that
manufacture equipment in the United
States. In addition, DOE requests
comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to
address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
DOE requests information regarding
the cumulative regulatory burden
impacts on manufacturers of MHLFs
associated with: (1) other DOE standards
applying to different products or
equipment that these manufacturers
may also make and (2) product/
equipment-specific regulatory actions of
other Federal agencies. DOE also
requests comment on its methodology
for computing cumulative regulatory
burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would
reduce this burden while remaining
consistent with the requirements of
EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date specified
in the DATES section of this document,
comments and information on matters
addressed in this document and on
other matters relevant to DOE’s
consideration of amended energy
conservations standards for MHLF.
After the close of the comment period,
DOE will review the public comments
received and may begin collecting data
and conducting the analyses discussed
in this document.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page requires
you to provide your name and contact
information. Your contact information
will be viewable to DOE Building
Technologies Office staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment. If
this instruction is followed, persons
viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names,
correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 05, 2022
Jkt 259001
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email to
MHLF2022STD0023@ee.doe.gov@
ee.doe.gov, two well-marked copies: one
copy of the document marked
confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the
participation and interaction of the
public during the comment period in
this process. Interactions with and
between members of the public provide
a balanced discussion of the issues and
assist DOE. Anyone who wishes to be
added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about
this process or would like to request a
public meeting should contact
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or via
email at
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60567
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on September 28,
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September
30, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022–21696 Filed 10–5–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 35
[Docket Nos. RM22–19–000; RM21–3–000]
Incentives for Advanced Cybersecurity
Investment; Cybersecurity Incentives
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
notice terminating proceeding.
AGENCY:
The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
proposes to revise its regulations to
provide incentive-based rate treatments
for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce and the sale of
electric energy at wholesale in interstate
commerce by utilities for the purpose of
benefitting consumers by encouraging
investments by utilities in advanced
cybersecurity technology and
participation by utilities in
cybersecurity threat information sharing
programs, as directed by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
of 2021 (Infrastructure and Jobs Act).
This notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) also terminates the NOPR
proceeding in Docket No. RM21–3–000
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60555-60567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21696]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60555]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1904-AF44
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures (``MHLF''). On October 25,
2021, DOE published a final determination concluding that energy
conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended because they
are not economically justified. No later than 3 years after such a
determination, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended, DOE must periodically review these standards and publish
either a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose new
standards for MHLFs or a notification of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be amended. This request for
information (``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE
determine whether amended standards for MHLFs would result in
significant energy savings and whether such standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. As part of this
RFI, DOE seeks comment on technological and market changes since the
most recent standards update to consider in its evaluation of more
stringent standards. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public
on any subject within the scope of this document (including those
topics not specifically raised), as well as the submission of data and
other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before November 7, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments may
submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023, by
any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section III for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Baseline Models
3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
4. Scaling Non-Representative Equipment Classes
5. Cost Analysis
E. Markup Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Replacement Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
H. Shipments
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
[[Page 60556]]
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products
include MHLFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19))
\3\ EPCA prescribed initial energy conservation standards for MHLFs,
and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(2)(A), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ DOE notes that because of the codification of the MHLF
provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy conservation standards and
the associated test procedures are subject to the requirements of
the consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III of EPCA.
However, because MHLFs are generally considered to be commercial
equipment, DOE established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 CFR part
431 (``Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment'') for ease of reference. DOE notes that the
location of the provisions within the CFR does not affect either the
substance or applicable procedure for MHLFs. Based upon their
placement into 10 CFR part 431, MHLFs are referred to as
``equipment'' throughout this document, although covered by the
consumer product provisions of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d))
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notification of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In making a
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must
evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant
conservation of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are
cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)). Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the benefits of a
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable,
considering the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to
any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to
result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE determines not to
amend a standard based on the statutory criteria, not later than 3
years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend
standards, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make
the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and
provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)).
In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard
based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not
later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)).
DOE completed the first of these required rulemaking cycles in 2014
by publishing a final rule amending performance standards for MHLFs
manufactured on or after February 10, 2017. 79 FR 7746 (February 10,
2014) (``2014 Final Rule''). Additionally, DOE completed the second
rulemaking cycle reviewing current standard and determined not to amend
the energy conservation standards for MHLFs by publishing a final rule
in 2021. 86 FR 58763 (October 25, 2021) (``2021 Final Determination'').
The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, section 31.326. The
currently applicable DOE test procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR
431.324.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE also recently published a final rule adopting amendments
to its test procedure for MHLFs to incorporate by reference new
relevant industry standards as well as update to latest versions of
existing references; clarify the selection of reference lamps used
for testing; specify the light output level at which to test dimming
ballasts; revise definitions and reorganize the content of the test
procedure for better readability and clarity; and revise the standby
mode test method for MHLFs. 87 FR 37685 (Jun. 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this RFI pursuant to EPCA's requirement that DOE
must reevaluate the energy conservation standards no later than 3 years
after making a determination not to amend standards, (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(3)(B), and to collect data and information to inform its
decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, DOE may
not prescribe an amended or new standard that will not result in
significant conservation of energy or is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\5\ For
example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement on
February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has
committed to reducing greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to
limit the rise in mean global temperature.\6\ As
[[Page 60557]]
such, energy savings that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater
importance. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE
considers primary energy and full-fuel cycle (``FFC'') effects when
determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and
FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture
of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
\6\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021)
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)).
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)).
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I-1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I-1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings................ Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy and Water
Use Determination.
Technological Feasibility................. Market and
Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering
Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Manufacturer Impact
Consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Markups for
Compared to Increased Cost for the Equipment Price
Product. Determination.
Energy and Water
Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total Projected Energy Savings......... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance....... Screening Analysis.
Engineering
Analysis.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition. Manufacturer Impact
Analysis.
6. Need for National Energy and Water Shipments Analysis.
Conservation. National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Employment Impact
Relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions
Benefits.\7\
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for MHLF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A states
that the public comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking documents will
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking but
will not be less than 75 calendar days. DOE is
[[Page 60558]]
opting to deviate from this provision by specifying a public comment
period of 30 days for this RFI. As noted, the 2021 Final Determination
was published on October 25, 2021. The methodologies and information
upon which DOE seeks comment in this RFI are based on the analysis
conducted for the 2021 Final Determination. Because stakeholders have
been made recently familiar with the subjects covered in this RFI
through the 2021 Final Determination and are not reviewing new
information, DOE has determined that 30 days is sufficient a period for
providing comments.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for MHLFs may be
warranted.
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meets the definition of MHLF, as
codified at 10 CFR 430.2. An MHLF is defined as a light fixture for
general lighting application designed to be operated with a metal
halide lamp and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64);
10 CFR 431.322. DOE has also defined several terms related to MHLF in
10 CFR 431.322.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-
140 (December 19, 2007) (``EISA 2007''), established energy
conservation standards for MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate
lamps with rated wattages between 150 watts (``W'') and 500 W and
excluded three types of fixtures within the covered wattage range from
energy conservation standards: (1) fixtures with regulated-lag
ballasts; (2) fixtures that use electronic ballasts and operate at 480
volts (``V''); and (3) fixtures that are rated only for 150 watt lamps,
are rated for use in wet locations as specified by the National Fire
Protection Association (``NFPA'') in NFPA 70, ``National Electrical
Code 2002 Edition,'' and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at
ambient air temperatures above 50 Celsius (``[deg]C'') as specified by
Underwriters Laboratory (``UL'') in UL 1029, ``Standard for Safety
High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A)-
(B)). In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE also promulgated standards for the
group of MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 50 W-150 W
and 501 W-1,000 W. DOE also promulgated standards for one type of
previously excluded fixture: A 150 W MHLF rated for use in wet
locations and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient
air temperatures greater than 50 [deg]C--i.e., those fixtures that fall
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii). DOE continued to exclude from
standards MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts and 480 V electronic
ballasts. In addition, due to a lack of applicable test method for
high-frequency electronic (``HFE'') ballasts, in the 2014 Final Rule,
DOE did not establish standards for MHLFs with HFE ballasts. 79 FR
7746, 7754-7756.
Although current standards for MHLFs require them to contain a
ballast that meets or exceeds a minimum ballast efficiency, the entity
responsible for certifying compliance with the applicable standard is
the MHLF manufacturer or importer. The MHLF manufacturer may opt to use
a third-party to certify on its behalf, such as the ballast
manufacturer. However, the MHLF manufacturer or importer is ultimately
responsible for certifying compliance to DOE. See generally 42 U.S.C.
6291(10)-(12) and 10 CFR 429.12.
DOE seeks feedback on whether definitions related to MHLFs in 10
CFR 431.322 require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions
should be revised. DOE also seeks input on whether additional
definitions are necessary for DOE to clarify or otherwise implement its
regulatory requirements related to MHLFs.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the MHLF industry that
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers,
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and manufacturing of MHLF. DOE also reviews
equipment literature, industry publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for
MHLFs.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into classes based on the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)). In making a determination
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
(Id.)
For MHLF, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 431.326 are based on 24 equipment classes determined according to
performance-related features that provide utility to the consumer, in
terms of input voltage, rated lamp wattage, and designation for indoor
versus outdoor applications. Table II-1 lists the current 24 equipment
classes for MHLFs.
Table II-1--Current MHLF Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with
lamps of the following rated Indoor/outdoor Input voltage type
lamp wattage ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Indoor............ All others.
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Outdoor........... All others.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Indoor............ All others.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Outdoor........... All others.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Indoor............ All others.
[[Page 60559]]
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Outdoor........... All others.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Indoor............ All others.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Outdoor........... All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Indoor............ All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Outdoor........... All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Indoor............ All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Outdoor........... All others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps;
rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70
(incorporated by reference, see 10 CFR 431.323), section 410.4(A); and
containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air
temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029 (incorporated by
reference, see 10 CFR 431.323).
** Excludes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps;
rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section
410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient
air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.
*** Input voltage for testing is specified by the test procedures.
Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W must be tested at 120
V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps >=150 W must be tested at 277
V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages must
be tested at the highest voltage the ballast is designed to operate.
In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE adopted standards that would result in
the benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions, and net present
value (``NPV'') at each representative equipment class that outweighed
the potential reduction in industry net present value (``INPV'') for
manufacturers. In doing so, DOE did not adopt standards for MHLFs
designed to be operated with lamps rated greater than 1,000 W and less
than or equal to 2,000 W. 79 FR 7746, 7834-7836. Furthermore, because
DOE adopted the same standards for indoor and outdoor equipment classes
that are tested at the same input voltage and operate lamps of the same
wattage, DOE omitted the indoor/outdoor distinction when codifying the
table of standards into 10 CFR 431.326(c). In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE
analyzed indoor and outdoor fixtures separately because these two types
of fixtures offer different performance-related features. When
electronic ballasts are used in outdoor applications, they require
additional transient protection because of the potential for voltage
surges in outdoor locations. Indoor fixtures with electronic ballasts
also have an added feature to provide 120 V auxiliary power
functionality for use in the event of a power outage. Based on these
different features, DOE established separate equipment classes for
indoor and outdoor fixtures, but adopted the same minimum energy
conservation standards for these classes. 79 FR 7746, 7763-7764. In the
2021 Final Determination, for the same reasons noted above, DOE
continued to analyze MHLFs under separate equipment classes for indoor
and outdoor fixtures. 86 FR 58763, 58769. As noted previously, DOE did
not amend standards in the 2021 Final Determination.
DOE seeks feedback on the current MHLF equipment classes and
whether changes to these individual equipment classes and their
descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be merged
or separated (e.g., indoor and outdoor, wattage ranges). Specifically,
DOE requests comment on whether the features associated with indoor
and/or outdoor fixtures (e.g., thermal management, transient
protection, auxiliary power functionality) remain in the market today.
DOE is also aware that new configurations and features are
available for MHLFs that may not have been available at the time of the
last energy conservation standards analysis. Based on DOE's review of
the market, DOE found metal halide dimming ballasts available from
multiple manufacturers that could be used in MHLFs. DOE has identified
both step-level dimming and continuous dimming metal halide systems
that are dimmable down to 50 percent of rated power.
DOE seeks information regarding any new equipment classes it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, DOE requests
information on any performance-related features (e.g., dimmability,
etc.) that may provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the
corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify separate
equipment classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of these
performance-related features would increase energy consumption).
In describing which MHLFs are included in each equipment class, DOE
incorporates by reference the 2002 version of NFPA 70, ``National
Electrical Code'' \8\ and the 2007 version of UL 1029, ``High-
Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts'' \9\ in DOE's regulations through 10
CFR 431.323. NFPA 70 is a national safety standard for electrical
design, installation, and inspection, and is also known as the National
Electrical Code. UL 1029 is a safety standard specific to high
intensity discharge (``HID'') lamp ballasts; a metal halide lamp
ballast is a type of HID lamp ballast. Both NFPA 70 and UL 1029 are
used to describe the applicable equipment class for MHLFs (see section
II.B.1 of this document). DOE has found that a 2020 version of NFPA 70
\10\ (``NFPA 70-2020'') and a 2022 version of UL 1029 \11\ (``UL 1029-
2022'') are now available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 70-2002 (``NFPA
70''), National Electrical Code 2002 Edition.
\9\ Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL 1029-2007) (``UL
1029''), Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts,
5th edition, Approved May 25, 1994.
\10\ National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 70-2020 (``NFPA
70''), National Electrical Code 2020 Edition.
\11\ Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL 1029-2007)
(``UL 1029''), Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp
Ballasts, 5th edition, Revised July 15, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on whether incorporating by reference the updated
industry standards, NFPA 70-2020 and UL 1029-2022, will impact the
MHLFs
[[Page 60560]]
included in each equipment class in DOE's regulations.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during the 2021 Final
Determination for MHLFs. A complete list of those prior options appears
in Table II-2.
Table II-2--Technology Options for MHLFs Considered in the Development of the 2021 Final Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast type Design option Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic............................. Improved Core Steel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain-Oriented Silicon Use a higher grade of electrical steel,
Steel. including grain-oriented silicon steel, to
lower core losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorphous Steel........ Create the core of the inductor from laminated
sheets of amorphous steel insulated from each
other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Steel Add steel laminations to lower core losses by
Laminations. using thinner laminations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Wiring.......... Use copper wiring in place of aluminum wiring to
lower resistive losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Windings...... Use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple,
smaller coils; shape-optimized coils to reduce
winding losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Ballast..... Replace magnetic ballasts with electronic
ballasts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic........................... Improved Components
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetics.............. Improved Windings: Use of optimized-gauge copper
wire; multiple, smaller coils; shape-optimized
coils; litz wire to reduce winding losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes................. Use diodes with lower losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacitors............. Use capacitors with a lower effective series
resistance and output capacitance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transistors............ Use transistors with lower drain-to-source
resistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Circuit Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Circuits.... Substitute discrete components with an
integrated circuit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II-2
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of MHLFs as measured according
to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these
technologies may have changed since they were considered in the 2021
Final Determination analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information on
the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are
currently available for each technology option.
DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may
impact equipment features or consumer utility of MHLFs.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial equipment
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
[[Page 60561]]
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
In the 2021 Final Determination, for magnetic ballasts, DOE
screened out the technology option of using laminated sheets of
amorphous steel. DOE determined that using amorphous steel could have
adverse impacts on consumer utility because increasing the size and
weight of the ballast may limit the places a consumer could use the
ballast. DOE did not screen out any other technology options in that
rulemaking. 86 FR 58763, 58771.
DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five screening
criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology
options listed in Table II-2 with respect to MHLFs. Similarly, DOE
seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect any
other technology options not already identified in this document with
respect to their potential use in MHLFs.
With respect to the screened-out technology option of laminated
sheets of amorphous steel, DOE seeks information on whether this option
would, based on current and projected assessments, remain screened out
under the five screening criteria described in this section.
Additionally, DOE seeks information on what steps, if any, could be (or
have already been) taken to facilitate the introduction of this
technology option as a means to improve the energy performance of MHLFs
and the potential to impact consumer utility of MHLFs.
D. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of MHLFs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of equipment cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and
payback period (``PBP'') analyses and the national impact analysis
(``NIA'')). The following sections provide further detail on DOE's
engineering analysis and seek public input on specific issues pertinent
to MHLFs, the subject of this rulemaking.
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing equipment (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual equipment on the market) may be
extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define
``gap fill'' levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified
efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the maximum technologically
feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level (particularly in cases where
the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently
available on the market).
2. Baseline Models
For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common
or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and
provides basic consumer utility. Consistent with this analytical
approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current minimum energy
conservations standards (which went into effect February 10, 2017) to
establish the baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class. 79
FR 7749. The current standards for each equipment class are based on
ballast efficiency. The current standards for MHLFs are found at 10 CFR
431.326.
DOE requests feedback on whether the current energy conservation
standards for MHLFs are the appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards for these equipment classes.
DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency levels
for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not currently in
place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes, as discussed
in section II.B.1 of this document.
3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
selects certain equipment classes as ``representative'' to focus its
analysis. DOE chooses equipment classes as representative primarily
because of their high market volumes and/or unique characteristics. In
the 2021 Final Determination analysis, DOE did not directly analyze the
equipment classes containing fixtures with ballasts tested at 480 V due
to low shipment volumes. DOE selected all other equipment classes as
representative, resulting in a total of 12 representative classes
covering the full range of lamp wattages, as well as indoor and outdoor
designations. DOE then scaled the efficiency levels (``ELs'') from
representative equipment classes to those equipment classes it did not
analyze directly (see section II.D.4 for further details on scaling).
86 FR 58763, 58771-58772, 58776.
In the 2021 Final Determination, based on the more-efficient
ballasts selected for the analysis, DOE developed ELs for the
representative equipment classes. DOE found the more-efficient magnetic
EL represented
[[Page 60562]]
a magnetic ballast with a higher grade of steel compared to the
baseline. DOE identified a second EL (an electronic EL) for the >=150 W
and <=250 W and >250 W and <=500 W equipment classes. The standard
electronic level represented a ballast with standard electronic
circuitry. DOE identified a third EL (a more efficient electronic EL)
in the >=50 W and <=100 W and >100 W and <150 W equipment classes. The
more-efficient electronic EL represented an electronic ballast with an
improved circuit design and/or more efficient components compared to
the standard electronic level. The maximum available ELs identified for
the 12 analyzed equipment classes in the 2021 Final Determination are
specified in Table II-3. 86 FR 58763, 58774, 58776.
Table II-3--Maximum Efficiency Levels From 2021 Final Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps of Maximum efficiency
the following rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor Input voltage type level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W................... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>100 W and <150 W.................... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>=150 W and <=250 W.................. Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>250 W and <=500 W................... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>500 W and <=1,000 W................. Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 0.000057*P+0.881.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W............... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V -0.000008*P+0.946.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options
are incorporated in a model. In applying these design options, DOE
would only include those that are compatible with each other that when
combined, would represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency.
In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially
available because it is not economically feasible to implement. In the
2021 Final Determination, DOE determined max-tech efficiency levels
based on commercially available ballasts.
DOE seeks input on whether the max-tech efficiency levels presented
in Table II-3 are appropriate and technologically feasible for
potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards for
the equipment at issue--and if not, why not.
DOE also requests feedback on whether the max-tech efficiency
levels presented in Table II-3 are representative of those for the
equipment classes not directly analyzed in the 2021 Final Determination
(i.e., ballasts tested at 480 V). If the range of possible efficiencies
is different for the other equipment classes not directly analyzed,
what alternative approaches should DOE consider using for those
equipment classes and why?
DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at
a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those
levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to
whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of
design options.
4. Scaling Non-Representative Equipment Classes
After developing ELs, DOE then scales the ELs from representative
equipment classes to those equipment classes it does not analyze
directly. As discussed in section II.D.3 of this document, DOE did not
directly analyze the equipment classes containing fixtures with
ballasts tested at 480 V and instead scaled them from the ELs of
equipment classes analyzed in the 2021 Final Determination.
Specifically, DOE developed a scaling factor by comparing quad-voltage
ballasts \12\ over all representative wattages to their 480 V ballast
counterparts. DOE found that the difference in efficiency between
ballasts tested at 480 V and ballasts tested at other input voltages
varied based on the wattage of the ballast. Based on this analysis and
comments from manufacturers DOE concluded a scaling factor of 12.0
percent (in the form of a subtraction of 12 percent from the
representative equipment class ELs) to be appropriate from 50 W-150 W,
a scaling factor of 4.0 percent to be appropriate from 150 W to 1,000
W, and a scaling factor of 0.0 percent (i.e., no reduction) to be
appropriate from 1,001 W to 2,000 W. 86 FR 58763, 58776-58777.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Quad-voltage ballasts are capable of operating at 120 V or
277 V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on whether it is necessary to individually
analyze all 24 equipment classes used in the 2021 Final Determination.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comment on whether the approach used to
apply the analyzed equipment class results to the other equipment
classes is appropriate--and if not, why not? For example, if it is
necessary to individually analyze more than 12 equipment classes used
in the 2021 Final Determination, please provide information on why
aggregating certain equipment is not appropriate. If this approach is
not appropriate, what alternative approaches should DOE consider using
and why?
DOE requests feedback on how the performance of ballasts that are
tested at 480 V compares to ballasts of the same wattage and indoor/
outdoor classification that are in other equipment classes. DOE also
requests comment on the scaling factors used to develop ELs for the
equipment classes containing fixtures with ballasts tested at 480 V.
5. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
equipment, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
[ballot] Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available equipment, component-by-component,
to develop a detailed bill of materials for the equipment.
[ballot] Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing an
equipment, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams
(available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for
example) to develop the bill of materials for the equipment.
[ballot] Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated
[[Page 60563]]
equipment such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to
disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-
prohibitive and otherwise impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers),
DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data
published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices
from distributors and other commercial channels.
The bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer
production cost (``MPC'') estimates. DOE then applies a manufacturer
markup to convert the MPC to manufacturer selling price (``MSP''). The
manufacturer markup accounts for costs such as overhead and profit. The
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC estimates.
For the 2021 Final Determination, DOE conducted teardown analyses
on commercially available MHLFs, and the ballasts included in these
fixtures. Using the information from these teardowns, DOE summed the
direct material, labor, and overhead costs used to manufacture a MHLF
or metal halide (``MH'') ballast, to calculate the MPC. DOE then
determined the MSPs of fixture components and more-efficient MH
ballasts identified for each EL. To determine the fixture components
MSPs, DOE conducted fixture teardowns to derive MPCs of empty fixtures
(i.e., lamp enclosure and optics). The empty fixture does not include
the ballast or lamp. DOE then added the other components required by
the system (including ballast and any cost adders associated with
electronically ballasted systems) and applied appropriate markups to
obtain a final MSP for the entire fixture. 86 FR 58763, 58777.
DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would incorporate the
technology options listed in Table II-2 to increase energy efficiency
in MHLFs beyond the baseline. This includes information on the
sequencing manufacturers would follow when incorporating the different
technologies to incrementally improve MHLF efficiency. DOE also
requests feedback on whether increased energy efficiency would lead to
other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is interested
in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a
manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or
attributes in response to consumer demand. DOE is also interested in
the extent to which (if at all) any design changes may adversely impact
the ability of a given MHLF to operate with currently compatible
applications.
DOE seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design option (e.g., improved core
steel). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs
estimated for design options in the 2021 Final Determination have
changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information
on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options,
including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement
each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be
applicable to (or incompatible with) certain equipment classes.
DOE seeks input on any relevant cost adders necessary based on
ballast and fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic ballast, indoor
or outdoor fixture). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how
the incremental costs for electronically ballasted fixtures in the 2021
Final Determination have changed since the time of that analysis.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting MSP is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. For the 2021 Final
Determination DOE used separate markups for ballast manufacturers
(1.47) and fixture manufacturers (1.58). 86 FR 58763, 58778.
DOE requests feedback on whether its assumptions regarding
manufacturer markups and the values of the markups (1.47 and 1.58) are
appropriate for ballast manufacturers and fixture manufacturers,
respectively--with the 1.58 markup applying to fixtures with and
without ballasts). If they are appropriate, why--and if not, why not?
If they are not appropriate, what should they be and why?
E. Markup Analysis
DOE derives consumer prices based on manufacturer markups, retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups (where appropriate),
and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE determines the major
distribution channels for equipment sales, the markup associated with
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline equipment
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency equipment (``incremental
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the
equipment is distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in
generating consumer price inputs for the LCC analysis and NIA.
DOE tentatively plans to use the same distribution channels and
wholesaler and contractor markups as in the 2021 Final Determination.
In an electrical wholesaler distribution channel, DOE assumed the
fixture manufacturer sells the fixture to an electrical wholesaler
(i.e., distributor), who in turn sells it to a contractor, who sells it
to the consumer. In a contractor distribution channel, DOE assumed the
fixture manufacturer sells the fixture directly to a contractor, who
sells it to the consumer. In a utility distribution channel, DOE
assumed the fixture manufacturer sells the fixture directly to the
consumer (i.e., electrical utility). Indoor fixtures are all assumed to
go through the electrical wholesaler distribution channel. Outdoor
fixtures are assumed to go through all three distribution channels as
follows: 60 percent electrical wholesaler, 20 percent contractor, and
20 percent utility. 86 FR 58763, 58778-58779.
In the 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the same wholesaler and
contractor markups as the 2014 Final Rule and assumed a wholesaler
baseline markup of 1.23 and a contractor markup of 1.13, yielding a
total wholesaler distribution channel baseline markup of 1.49. The
lower wholesaler incremental markup of 1.05 yields a lower total
incremental markup through this distribution channel of 1.27. DOE also
assumed a utility markup of 1.00 for the utility distribution channel
in which the manufacturer sells a fixture directly to the consumer. DOE
again assumed a contractor markup of 1.13 for the utility distribution
channel in which a manufacturer sells a fixture to a contractor who in
turn sells it to the consumer yielding an overall markup of 1.21 for
this channel. 86 FR 58763, 58779.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the
distribution channels or wholesaler or contractor markups.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how the equipment is used by consumers, and
thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. DOE bases the energy consumption of metal halide lamp
fixtures on the rated annual energy consumption as determined by the
DOE test procedure. Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is
meant to
[[Page 60564]]
represent typical energy consumption in the field.
DOE tentatively plans to use the same energy use methodology as in
the 2021 Final Determination. To develop annual energy use estimates,
DOE multiplied the lamp-and-ballast system input power (in watts) by
annual usage (in hours per year). DOE characterized representative
lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering analysis, which provided
measured input power ratings. To characterize the country's average
usage of fixtures for a typical year, DOE developed annual operating
hour distributions by sector, using data published in the 2015 U.S.
Lighting Market Characterization (``LMC'').\13\ For the >=50 W and
<=100 W to >500 W and <=1000 W equipment classes, DOE obtained
weighted-average annual operating hours for the commercial, industrial,
and outdoor stationary sectors of approximately 2,300 hours, 5,100
hours, and 5,000 hours, respectively. For the 1,500 W equipment class,
DOE assigned annual operating hours of approximately 770 hours for all
lamps according to the 2015 LMC estimate of 2.1 hours per day for
sports field lighting. 86 FR 58763, 58779.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC.
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed February 3, 2020.) https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the operating
hours for metal halide lamp fixtures.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation standards for metal halide
lamp fixtures on individual consumers. For any given efficiency level,
DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated
baseline level. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of
the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating
costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the
calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--
which includes MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and
installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the year that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
DOE tentatively plans to develop inputs for the LCC analysis similarly
to the 2021 Final Determination, as discussed in the following
subsections.
1. Equipment Cost
In the 2021 Final Determination, to calculate consumer equipment
costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by
the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline equipment and higher-efficiency
equipment because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in
MSP associated with higher-efficiency equipment. 86 FR 58763, 58779,
58780-58781.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost is the cost to install the fixture such as the
labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed. In
the 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the installation costs from the
2014 Final Rule but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP price deflator. 86
FR 58763, 58780-58781.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the
installation cost for metal halide lamp fixtures.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
In the 2021 Final Determination, for each sampled consumer, DOE
determined the energy consumption for an MHLF at different efficiency
levels using the approach described previously in section II.F of this
document. DOE used operating hour (and, by extension, energy use)
distributions to better characterize the potential range of operating
conditions faced by MHLF consumers. 86 FR 58763, 58779-58781.
4. Energy Prices
DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the
equipment purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal
electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated
with the other efficiency levels considered in the 2021 Final
Determination. DOE derived annual electricity prices for each census
division using data from the Edison Electric Institute (``EEI'')
Typical Bills and Average Rates reports.\14\ To estimate energy prices
in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by a
projection of annual change in national-average commercial and
industrial energy prices in the Reference case of Annual Energy Outlook
2021 (``AEO 2021'').\15\ AEO 2021 has an end year of 2050. DOE assumed
regional electricity prices after 2050 are constant at their 2050
price. 86 FR 58763, 58780-58781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report. 2019. Winter 2019, Summer 2019: Washington, DC.
\15\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 2021. Washington, DC. (Last
accessed March 18, 2021.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Replacement Costs
Replacement costs include the labor and materials costs associated
with replacing a ballast or lamp at the end of their lifetimes and are
annualized across the years preceding and including the actual year in
which equipment is replaced. In the 2021 Final Determination, the costs
were taken from the 2014 Final Rule but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP
price deflator. For the LCC and PBP analysis, the analysis period
corresponds with the fixture lifetime that is assumed to be longer than
that of either the lamp or the ballast. For this reason, ballast and
lamp prices and labor costs associated with lamp or ballast
replacements are included in the calculation of operating costs. Id.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the replacement
costs for metal halide lamp fixtures.
6. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines equipment lifetime as the age when a fixture, ballast,
or lamp is retired from service. In the 2021 Final Determination, for
fixtures in all equipment classes, DOE assumed average lifetimes for
indoor and outdoor fixtures of 20 and 25 years, respectively. DOE also
assumed that magnetic ballasts had a rated lifetime of 50,000 hours and
electronic ballasts had a rated lifetime of 40,000 hours. DOE used
manufacturer catalog data to obtain rated lifetime estimates (in hours)
for lamps in each equipment class. DOE accounted for uncertainty in the
fixture, ballast, and lamp lifetimes by applying Weibull survival
distributions to the components' rated lifetimes. Furthermore, DOE
included a residual value calculation for lamps and ballasts to account
for the residual monetary value associated with the remaining life in
the lamp and ballast at the end of the fixture lifetime. Id.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the equipment
lifetime for metal halide lamp fixtures.
7. Discount Rates
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are
discounted to estimate their present value. In the 2021 Final
Determination, DOE estimated separate discount rates for commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary applications. DOE used discount rate
[[Page 60565]]
data from a 2019 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.\16\ The
average discount rates, weighted by the shares of each rate value in
the sectoral distributions, are 8.3 percent for commercial consumers,
8.8 percent for industrial consumers, and 3.2 percent for outdoor
stationary consumers. 86 FR 58763, 58781-58782.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Fujita, K. S. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency Standards Analysis: Sector-
Level Data 1998-2018. 2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Berkeley, CA. (Last accessed January 15, 2020.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/commercial-industrial-institutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
For the 2021 Final Determination, DOE developed a no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution using model count data from DOE's
compliance certification database collected on May 5, 2021. The
compliance certification database does not contain models in the >1000
W and <=2000 W equipment class; therefore, DOE assumed 56 percent of
the market is at the baseline and 44 percent of the market is at EL 1,
based on MHLF catalog data. The complete efficiency distribution for
2025 that DOE used in the 2021 Final Determination is shown in Table
II-4. 86 FR 58763, 58782.
Table II-4--MHLF Efficiency Distribution by Equipment Class for 2025 From the 2021 Final Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level >=50 W and >100 W and >=150 W and >250 W and >500 W and >1000 W and
<=100 W (%) <150 W (%) <=250 W (%) <=500 W (%) <=1000 W (%) <=2000 W (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 82.0 16.4 53.6 95.6 97.1 56.0
1....................................................... 1.2 32.9 40.1 1.1 2.9 44.0
2....................................................... 9.5 0.0 6.3 3.3 .............. ..............
3....................................................... 7.4 50.7 .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the no-new-
standards efficiency distribution for metal halide lamp fixtures.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment,
compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback
periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of
the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not
recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)). For each considered efficiency level, DOE
determines the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
H. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of MHLFs to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy
consumption, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. Using a three-
step process, in the 2021 Final Determination, DOE developed
projections of future fixture shipments using historical data as the
basis. First, DOE used U.S. Census Bureau fixture shipment data,
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') lamp shipment
data, and NEMA ballast sales trends to estimate historical shipments of
each fixture type analyzed. Second, DOE estimated the installed stock
for each fixture in 2021 based on the average service lifetime of each
fixture type. Third, DOE developed annual shipment projections for
2021-2052 by modeling fixture purchasing events, such as replacement
and new construction, and applying estimates of the building stock
growth rate, MHLF replacement rate, and penetration rate of light
emitting diode (``LED'') alternatives. 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783. DOE
used model counts from data downloaded from DOE's compliance
certification database for MHLFs to estimate market shares by equipment
class as shown in Table II-5. Id.
Table II--5 Market Share by Equipment Class for Shipments in 2021 From the 2021 Final Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and >100 W and >=150 W and >250 W and >500 W and >1000 W and
<=100 W (%) <150 W (%) <=250 W (%) <=500 W (%) <=1000 W (%) <=2000 W (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Share...................................... 25.5 8.2 24.9 31.2 9.7 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks any information or data on updates to the market share by
equipment class relative to the market shares estimated in the 2021
Final Determination.
Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model that
captures recent trends in the market. In the 2021 Final Determination,
DOE projected a faster decline in MHLF shipments compared to what it
had projected in
[[Page 60566]]
the notice of proposed determination for the rule (see 85 FR 47472
(August 5, 2020)), based on updated NEMA sales indices, that resulted
in a decline of 2030 shipments of metal halide lamps by more than 99
percent relative to shipments in 2021, due to the incursion of out-of-
scope LED equipment.\17\ 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See chapter 9 of the 2021 Final Determination Technical
Support Document: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks data on MHLF and metal halide lamp ballast shipments, as
well as the projected shipment values from the 2021 Final Determination
as compared to actual recent shipments of MHLFs.
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic
impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The
NIA assesses the national energy savings and the national NPV of total
consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result over 30
years of shipments from new or amended standards at specific efficiency
levels.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing
no-new-standards-case projections with standards-case projections. The
no-new-standards-case projections characterize energy use and consumer
costs for each equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards. DOE compares the no-new-standards-case with
projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE
adopts new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels
(i.e., the trial standard levels (``TSLs'') or standards cases) for
that class. In characterizing the no-new-standards and standards cases,
DOE considers historical shipments, the mix of efficiencies sold in the
absence of amended standards, penetration into the market from out-of-
scope LED alternatives, and how the market may evolve over time.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of MHLFs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted for every
equipment in this analysis, with the key output of INPV. The
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy
conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and industry
competition, as well as factors such as equipment characteristics,
impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and
equipment trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code.\18\ Manufacturing of consumer MHLF is classified
under NAICS 335122, ``Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold
of 500 employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a
small business. Manufacturing of metal halide ballasts is classified
under NAICS 335311, ``Power, Distribution and Specialty Transformer
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. The
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Available online at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (last accessed August 9, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product/equipment-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product or equipment lines or markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products or equipment. For these reasons, DOE
conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its
rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information
of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute MHLFs in
the United States.
DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers that
could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation
standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of
MHLFs that manufacture equipment in the United States. In addition, DOE
requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards.
DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be
considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small
businesses.
DOE requests information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden
impacts on manufacturers of MHLFs associated with: (1) other DOE
standards applying to different products or equipment that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) product/equipment-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and
whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce
this burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations
standards for MHLF. After the close of the comment period, DOE will
review the public comments received and may begin collecting data and
conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last
[[Page 60567]]
names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name
(if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of
technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you.
If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider
your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email to [email protected]@ee.doe.gov, two well-marked copies:
one copy of the document marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about this process or would like to
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
28, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-21696 Filed 10-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
